Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1107 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Parker wrote
10.5.1.1 Specified Substances
Where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance, and the Athlete or other Person can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.

Here's an example of a reprimand: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36404943

Froome hasn't yet been referred to a hearing so it's a bit premature to state what he is or isn't eligible for.
OK thanks

Froomes going to establish- No Significant Fault and receives a reprimand with no period of Ineligibility...
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Parker said:
- The process is independent of the UCI management. They have no leverage and no influence on it.
Right now, Froome is in the UCI's own Anti-Doping Tribunal, and they appoint the judge from a selection of five possible independent choices. The UCI also proposes the sanction, and then the judge either agrees or disagrees with the duration of the suspension, disqualification of race results, payment of fines
- The Anti-Doping tribunal has yet to rule on a salbutamol case. Most of the cases have a four year maximum. This has just two.
It could actually be four years, it's just unlikely that the UCI would seek four years, and to get it they would have to prove that Froome took more than the limit intentionally.
- The last two cyclist to fall foul of this got nine months
Both cases before the Anti-Doping Tribunal was established in 2015, it's a somewhat different game now
- If found guilty he'll probably get nine months
The judge will be aware of those cases, but in order for the judge to reduce the ban, Froome would first have to change his legal strategy. Up until now Froome has insisted that he didn't take more than the allowed dose, that he has "No Fault or Negligence" whatsoever. So he has a dilemma, which is why some people in the media have called it an "all or nothing" strategy. For a reduced ban, he would have to first admit taking more than the allowed dose, and then prove that he took more accidentally, through "No Significant Fault or Negligence"

Froome has to proceed under the assumption that the Anti-Doping Tribunal decision will be eventually published, so how does he want his defense to go down on paper? To insist on innocence for the sake of posterity, or "untarnished legacy", knowing that he will get two years ban? Or, to try to strike a middle-ground for a reduced ban, but have to admit on paper what he has always denied
- It's the CADF that does the UCI stuff. Still independent from management. It's likely they would recommend a similar sentence as before - they don't want to give grounds for an appeal.
- Four years is only in the circumstances you mention which aren't present here.
- The anti-doping tribunal haven't done a specified substance case yet. Their game so far seems fairly consistent with what went before.
- What Froome may have 'insisted' up to now is irrelevant. His defence will no doubt focus on other factors but his lawyer's not stupid and won't take the possibility of inadvertent negligence off the table.
 
For a reduced ban, he would have to first admit taking more than the allowed dose, and then prove that he took more accidentally, through "No Significant Fault or Negligence"
"The doc told me to ..." ?

Edit - plus - "SDB told me also about another team that he has some dirt on ... "
 
Parker, are you still an employee of Sky? You're doing a sterling job for the Sky/Froome PR campaign, I hope you have checked your employment contract for when it all completely unravels shortly that you at least get a decent redundancy package.
 
Verdict in August?
http://inrng.com/2018/02/froome-quently-asked-questions/
Wow! This sounds a very plausible sequence of events. Hold out the hearing (hopefully) until the Tour ends, then probably plead negligence and negotiate a 8-9 month ban – which would make him only miss Vuelta/ WC, which he wouldnt have attempted anyway, and be back early 2019 to fight for the Tour/ Giro (whatever he wishes) again.
By then, if he has ‘won’ the Giro OR Giro+Tour, he would have Won all GTs OR won his 5 TdF, good enough point in time for him to even retire completely of the sport (incase he lands a 2 year ban).
Another theory circulating on The Cycling Podcast (actually floated by one of the listeners) was that Froome, who has been riding crazy miles in South Africa is trying to simulate riding a Grand Tour to mimic the condition his body was in September, to reproduce the PK testing. His mileage for the prev 2-3 weeks was apparently very close to his actual mileage in Vuelta.
 
Re:

ontheroad said:
Parker, are you still an employee of Sky? You're doing a sterling job for the Sky/Froome PR campaign, I hope you have checked your employment contract for when it all completely unravels shortly that you at least get a decent redundancy package.
No. I don’t even use Sky for my TV.

I’ve been presenting a coherent argument based on the laws. Others have engaged sensibly with other opinions. That’s fine. I’ve not even suggested he’ll escape a ban. If my arguments are so bad you should be able to address them rather than using the tired nonsense you’ve just written.

Now there are some here who just want a good old fashioned lynching. They are the extremists, not me.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
The Anti-Doping tribunal has yet to rule on a salbutamol case. Most of the cases have a four year maximum. This has just two.
Four. Not likely, but if you’re arguing on the basis of the maximum penalty, this is significant.

The last two cyclist to fall foul of this got nine months
Petacchi got ten months, plus he was basically suspended by his team for two months prior to being cleared by the Italian federation. And his case was stronger than Froome’s (based on what we know so far), having not only a much lower salbutamol level, but one that wouldn’t have exceeded the DL under the new rules.

If found guilty he'll probably get nine months. It will most likely be after the Giro. Perhaps even after the Tour.
Precedent indicates that if the two sides are committed to going to CADF, the decision will be handed down before the end of May. And that doesn’t even take into account the rule allowing the hearing to be expedited, which almost certainly would be applied given the looming Giro.

Also, Petacchi’s ban was back-dated, though like Froome he was free to ride up to the time of the final decision.

The judgement will, like Petacchi, state that there was no intention to cheat, so Sky will use this to retain him
Petacchi was fired by his team shortly after the CAS decision.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
I’ve been presenting a coherent argument based on the laws. Others have engaged sensibly with other opinions. That’s fine. I’ve not even suggested he’ll escape a ban. If my arguments are so bad you should be able to address them rather than using the tired nonsense you’ve just written.
Seems reasonable.

Parker said:
Now there are some here who just want a good old fashioned lynching. They are the extremists, not me.
Whoops!
 
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/funrunrobbie/status/954800890174758912


20 gen
Interesting read. On a British cycling podcast a fan noted that Froome has been posting his rides on strava and during the last 3 weeks in hot South Africa he has done the same miles as a grand tour. He was in the UCI labs yesterday 19/1/18 @twojohnspodcast
Interesting.

Maybe going off at a complete and utter wrong interpretation of this. BUT, if he had put out similar readings as the Vuelta, surly we would have heard about it now and the air would be clear and everything going on as normal. Instead its still up in the air.

Maybe, I am simplifying the process.
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
brownbobby said:
Likely? :lol:
Given the fact that Sky were known for OOC abuse before that and they screwed up royally more than a few time i'd say pretty likely, yes.
The TUE was for prednisolone, which isnt exactly known for its weight loss / keep power properties. If the TUE had been for Kenacort then your point would be much more accurate.
 
MartinGT said:
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/funrunrobbie/status/954800890174758912


20 gen
Interesting read. On a British cycling podcast a fan noted that Froome has been posting his rides on strava and during the last 3 weeks in hot South Africa he has done the same miles as a grand tour. He was in the UCI labs yesterday 19/1/18 @twojohnspodcast
Interesting.

Maybe going off at a complete and utter wrong interpretation of this. BUT, if he had put out similar readings as the Vuelta, surly we would have heard about it now and the air would be clear and everything going on as normal. Instead its still up in the air.

Maybe, I am simplifying the process.
things don't work very quickly at the UCI though do they ...
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
brownbobby said:
Likely? :lol:
Given the fact that Sky were known for OOC abuse before that and they screwed up royally more than a few time i'd say pretty likely, yes.
The TUE was for prednisolone, which isnt exactly known for its weight loss / keep power properties. If the TUE had been for Kenacort then your point would be much more accurate.
Both are glucocorticoids, triamcinolone acetonide is simply more potent by weight, so you can dose less/less often but at the end of the day they do roughly the same thing.
 
Re: Re:

ColonelKidneyBeans said:
TheSpud said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
brownbobby said:
Likely? :lol:
Given the fact that Sky were known for OOC abuse before that and they screwed up royally more than a few time i'd say pretty likely, yes.
The TUE was for prednisolone, which isnt exactly known for its weight loss / keep power properties. If the TUE had been for Kenacort then your point would be much more accurate.
Both are glucocorticoids, triamcinolone acetonide is simply more potent by weight, so you can dose less/less often but at the end of the day they do roughly the same thing.
Ok, so as we're talking about OOC use (this was the original 'likely' theory that you put forward) why would they be using prednisolone, when they could be using the much more potent Kenacort perfectly legally :confused:
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/funrunrobbie/status/954800890174758912


20 gen
Interesting read. On a British cycling podcast a fan noted that Froome has been posting his rides on strava and during the last 3 weeks in hot South Africa he has done the same miles as a grand tour. He was in the UCI labs yesterday 19/1/18 @twojohnspodcast
it looked like a lot of his rides were motor paced *220kms ++ @ >45kph average
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
TheSpud said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
brownbobby said:
Likely? :lol:
Given the fact that Sky were known for OOC abuse before that and they screwed up royally more than a few time i'd say pretty likely, yes.
The TUE was for prednisolone, which isnt exactly known for its weight loss / keep power properties. If the TUE had been for Kenacort then your point would be much more accurate.
Both are glucocorticoids, triamcinolone acetonide is simply more potent by weight, so you can dose less/less often but at the end of the day they do roughly the same thing.
Ok, so as we're talking about OOC use (this was the original 'likely' theory that you put forward) why would they be using prednisolone, when they could be using the much more potent Kenacort perfectly legally :confused:
I have never seen anyone claim that Pred is used to shed weight & keep power ...
 
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/funrunrobbie/status/954800890174758912


20 gen
Interesting read. On a British cycling podcast a fan noted that Froome has been posting his rides on strava and during the last 3 weeks in hot South Africa he has done the same miles as a grand tour. He was in the UCI labs yesterday 19/1/18 @twojohnspodcast

First I've heard of him being in a lab
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
TheSpud said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
brownbobby said:
Likely? :lol:
Given the fact that Sky were known for OOC abuse before that and they screwed up royally more than a few time i'd say pretty likely, yes.
The TUE was for prednisolone, which isnt exactly known for its weight loss / keep power properties. If the TUE had been for Kenacort then your point would be much more accurate.
Both are glucocorticoids, triamcinolone acetonide is simply more potent by weight, so you can dose less/less often but at the end of the day they do roughly the same thing.
Ok, so as we're talking about OOC use (this was the original 'likely' theory that you put forward) why would they be using prednisolone, when they could be using the much more potent Kenacort perfectly legally :confused:
There can be a myriad of reason for that, from easier dosage control (kenacort you take an IM injection and you're done with it for a few weeks, that's nice but you can't adjust dosage as needed, unlike with oral prednisolone everyday), personal preference/biochemistry of the athlete, the ease of obtaining a TUE IC for it (triamcinolone acetonide might be trickier to get), and that's only what i can think of at the top of my head.



I have never seen anyone claim that Pred is used to shed weight & keep power ...
Similar drugs that acts at the same receptor with a similar binding profile having similar effects, unbelievable i know!

Also i love how you try to pass corticosteroids as "just weight loss drugs" (they are not, most people gain weight on them because of increased appetite, fluid retention also play a role, but they can act as weight loss drugs on elite athletes) maybe you want a source more reliable than Millar about their PED effects? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805102
 
Feb 24, 2014
516
0
0
53*11 said:
pastronef said:
https://twitter.com/funrunrobbie/status/954800890174758912


20 gen
Interesting read. On a British cycling podcast a fan noted that Froome has been posting his rides on strava and during the last 3 weeks in hot South Africa he has done the same miles as a grand tour. He was in the UCI labs yesterday 19/1/18 @twojohnspodcast
it looked like a lot of his rides were motor paced *220kms ++ @ >45kph average
Could it be the case that Froome has managed to replicate his "dodgy kidney" story during his "Tour of South Africa" and is now satisfied he can return to cycling, knowing he will be exonerated in a few days/weeks??
 
If Froome did simulate a GT in South Africa, who verified Froome did not take more than the allowed dosage of salbutamol?

Also, that could explain him training in black kit. Getting nicely dehydrated. Don't forget he raced in red for 18 stages.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

webvan said:
Good point, it seems impossible to prove that he can get 2000 ng/ml if no one spends time with him round the clock to monitor his salbutamol intake and make sure it's the allowed max dosage !
Even worse for Froome is that I highly doubt they kept detailed records of every puff he took during the Vuelta, and then had a physician sign them. So there's no way to show that he's reproducing ANYTHING. Just that he can game the system to show high values.

John Swanson
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY